Cancers 2015, 7, 1072-1090; doi:10.

3390/cancers7020825

OPEN ACCESS

cancers
ISSN 2072-6694
www.mdpi.com/journal/cancers
Article

Oncogenic BRAF(V600E) Induces Clastogenesis and

UVB Hypersensitivity
Dennis A. Simpson 1,2, *, Nathalay Lemonie 1 , David S. Morgan 1 , Shobhan Gaddameedhi 3 and
William K. Kaufmann 1,2,4
1

Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
CB7295, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA; E-Mails: nlemoine@live.unc.edu (N.L.);
dscardamone@gmail.com (D.S.M.); wkarlk@med.unc.edu (W.K.K.)
2
Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB7295,
Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
3
Department of Experimental and Systems Pharmacology, College of Pharmacy, Washington State
University, Spokane, WA 99210, USA; E-Mail: shobhan.gaddameedhi@wsu.edu
4
Center for Environmental Health and Susceptibility, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
CB7295, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; E-Mail: dennis@email.unc.edu;
Tel.: +1-919-966-8552.
Academic Editor: Chyi-Chia Richard Lee
Received: 24 April 2015 / Accepted: 11 June 2015 / Published: 17 June 2015

Abstract: The oncogenic BRAF(V600E) mutation is common in melanomas as well as

moles. The roles that this mutation plays in the early events in the development of melanoma
are poorly understood. This study demonstrates that expression of BRAF(V600E) is not only
clastogenic, but synergizes for clastogenesis caused by exposure to ultraviolet radiation in the
300 to 320 nM (UVB) range. Expression of BRAF(V600E) was associated with induction
of Chk1 pS280 and a reduction in chromatin remodeling factors BRG1 and BAF180. These
alterations in the Chk1 signaling pathway and SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling pathway may
contribute to the clastogenesis and UVB sensitivity. These results emphasize the importance
of preventing sunburns in children with developing moles.
Keywords: BRAF(V600E); melanocytes; UVB; melanoma

Cancers 2015, 7

1073

1. Introduction
The oncogenic BRAF(V600E) mutation is a common mutation in many cancers and precancerous
lesions making it an important diagnostic marker and treatment target [13]. Of all cancers, the
BRAF(V600E) mutation is most prevalent in melanoma, being observed in about 50% of melanomas and
a similarly large fraction of melanocytic nevi [4,5]. Because the oncogenic BRAF(V600E) mutation is
observed in precancerous nevi it is thought to be a very early mutation in the development of melanoma.
With the epidemiological link between oncogenic BRAF(V600E) and melanoma being well established,
the contribution of BRAF(V600E) to melanoma development is under intense investigation. In vitro
expression of BRAF(V600E) in normal human cells, including melanocytes, results in a very rapid
oncogene-induced growth arrest phenotype that is independent of p53 [6]. The effect of oncogenic
BRAF(V600E) expression in nevi appears to be more complex, with a recent report suggesting that nevi
may in fact not be as senescent as previously believed [7]. Slow replication of melanocytes in nevi may
be necessary to fix into the genome mutations that are needed for the development of melanoma.
The Loeb mutator theory of human carcinogenesis holds that the background rate of mutation in
human cells is too low to generate the 68 independent mutations that are needed to produce a cancer, so
an early event in malignant transformation is a mutation (or epigenetic alteration) that increases the rate
of mutation [8,9]. Previous reports have suggested that expression of BRAF(V600E) in cells may result
in DNA damage as measured by micronuclei formation or by comet assay [10,11]. These studies both
used proxies as a measure of the DNA damage present in the cell and neither suggested a mechanism
for induction of the damage. A possible mechanism has been put forward that links BRAF(V600E),
an oncogene, to BRCA1, a tumor suppressor [12]. In this model expression of BRAF(V600E) drives
BRCA1 off the chromatin by down-regulation of BRIP1. This would make the cells phenotypically
BRCA1 null as seen in reports where BRCA1 was excluded from the nucleus through expression
of a dominant-negative BARD1 that blocks DNA damage-induced foci formation [13]. However
expression of BRCA1 is growth-dependent and it is not clear if the observed reduction in BRCA1 was
completely separate from the induction of oncogene-induced growth arrest. We report here the finding
that expression of oncogenic BRAF(V600E) is directly clastogenic, potentially fulfilling the role of a
Loeb mutator and that its expression sensitized cells to UVB-induced clastogenesis. We also present
evidence for a model that expression of oncogenic BRAF(V600E) results in altered regulation of Chk1
and a reduction in the amount of BAF180, potentially explaining the clastogenesis and UVB sensitivity
that is independent of oncogene-induced growth arrest.
2. Results and Discussion
2.1. Engineering and Validation of Cell Lines
A melanoma cell line that is wild-type for BRAF and NRAS, and engineered to express oncogenic
BRAF(V600E) has been described previously [14]. Using the same technique we engineered a second
melanoma line that is wild-type for BRAF and NRAS. The DNA damage checkpoint responses have been
described previously for both of these melanoma lines [1517]. Neither has a functional G1 checkpoint
response due to alterations in p53 signaling. Both have an intact G2 checkpoint response. Figure 1
shows that the expression of the V5-BRAF(V600E) can be regulated by the amount of doxycycline

Cancers 2015, 7
Cancers 2015, 7

1074
3

added to the medium in the two melanoma cell lines with the RPMI8322 + TetON + V5-BRAF(V600E)
the medium in the two melanoma cell lines with the RPMI8322 + TetON + V5-BRAF(V600E) line
line exhibiting induction at a lower doxycycline concentration (0.01 g/mL) than the PMWK + TetON +
exhibiting induction at a lower doxycycline concentration (0.01 g/mL) than the PMWK + TetON +
V5-BRAF(V600E) line (0.1 g/mL). The western blot shown in Figure 1A demonstrated a clear increase
V5-BRAF(V600E) line (0.1 g/mL). The western blot shown in Figure 1A demonstrated a clear increase
in the amount of the V5 tag present as the amount of doxycycline was increased. The exogenous
in the amount of the V5 tag present as the amount of doxycycline was increased. The exogenous
V5-BRAF
V5-BRAF was
was active
active as
as seen
seen by
by the
the induction
induction of
of phospho-MEK
phospho-MEK 1/2
1/2 and
and the
the correlation
correlation between
between
activation
of
MEK1/2
and
the
amount
of
V5-BRAF
present
in
the
extract
(Figure
1B).
The
RPMI8322
activation of MEK1/2 and the amount of V5-BRAF present in the extract (Figure 1B). The RPMI8322
line
line not
not only
only exhibited
exhibited aa lower
lower threshold
threshold for
for detection
detection of
of V5-BRAF(V600E)
V5-BRAF(V600E) but
but also
also exhibited
exhibited aa much
much
greater
fold
induction
of
phospho-MEK1/2
than
seen
in
the
PMWK
line.
greater fold induction of phospho-MEK1/2 than seen in the PMWK line.

Figure 1. Induction of V5-tagged oncogenic BRAF(V600E) in RPMI8322 and PMWK

Figure 1. Induction of V5-tagged oncogenic BRAF(V600E) in RPMI8322 and PMWK cells.
cells. (A) Western Blot of whole cell lysates showing time and doxycycline concentration
(A) Western Blot of whole cell lysates showing time and doxycycline concentration
dependent induction of V5-BRAF(V600E). (B) Quantification of pMEK1/2 signal from
dependent induction of V5-BRAF(V600E). (B) Quantification of pMEK1/2 signal from
panel A normalized to 0 g/mL doxycycline control.
panel A normalized to 0 g/mL doxycycline control.
Since expression of oncogenic BRAF causes oncogene-induced growth arrest we tested whether this
happened in our cell
As shown
shown in
in Figure 2, expression of V5-BRAF(V600E) blocked clonal
cell lines.
lines. As
expansion of the cell
In agreement
agreement with the different levels of
cell lines
lines in
in aa dose-dependent
dose-dependent manner.
manner. In
expression
of V5-BRAF(V600E)
V5-BRAF(V600E) shown
shown in
inFigure
Figure1A,
1A,the
theRPMI8322
RPMI8322line
linereduced
reduced
colony
formation
expression of
colony
formation
to
a greater
extent
confirm
to
a greater
extentthan
thanthe
thePMWK
PMWKline
lineatatthe
thelower
lower doxycycline
doxycycline concentrations.
concentrations. These
These results
results confirm
both the
the biochemistry
biochemistry and
and biology
biology of
of the
the system.
system.
both

Cancers 2015, 7
Cancers 2015, 7

1075
4

Figure 2. Oncogenic BRAF induced reduction in clonogenic expansion is dose dependent

Figure 2. Oncogenic BRAF induced reduction in clonogenic expansion is dose dependent
in all cell lines. Colony assay set up as described in the Experimental section. Each bar
in all cell lines. Colony assay set up as described in the Experimental section. Each bar
represents
represents three
three to
to four
four independent
independent determinations.
determinations.
2.2.
2.2. Oncogenic
Oncogenic BRAF
BRAF Induced
Induced Chromosomal
Chromosomal Aberrations
Aberrations
Previous
Previous reports
reports have
have suggested
suggested that
that V5-BRAF(V600E)
V5-BRAF(V600E) expression
expression may
may result
result in
in chromosomal
chromosomal
breaks
breaks and
and aa DNA
DNA damage
damage signal
signal in
in cells
cells as
as measured
measured by
by comet
comet assay,
assay, micronuclei
micronuclei formation,
formation, or
or
induction
We extended
extended these
these observations
observations by
induction of
of phosphorylated
phosphorylated H2aX
H2aX [10,11].
[10,11]. We
by directly
directly scoring
scoring
metaphase preparations
preparations for
for damaged
damaged chromosomes.
chromosomes. Expression
Expression of
of V5-BRAF(V600E)
V5-BRAF(V600E) caused
caused structural
structural
metaphase
chromosomal aberrations
aberrations in
in the
the RPMI8322
RPMI8322 ++ TetON
TetON ++ V5-BRAF(V600E)
V5-BRAF(V600E) and
and PMWK
PMWK ++ TetON
TetON ++
chromosomal
V5-BRAF(V600E) cells
cells after
was
no no
detectable
clastogenesis
in either
cell cell
line
V5-BRAF(V600E)
after 48
48 hhofofinduction.
induction.There
There
was
detectable
clastogenesis
in either
afterafter
24 h24
of honcogenic
BRAF
induction
(not shown).
FigureFigure
3A shows
representative
examples
of the
line
of oncogenic
BRAF
induction
(not shown).
3A shows
representative
examples
types
damage
observed.
The aberrations
observed
in bothincell
lines
chromatid
breaks
of
the of
types
of damage
observed.
The aberrations
observed
both
cellwere
linesprimarily
were primarily
chromatid
with a with
smaller
number
of exchange
aberrations
andand
a few
dicentrics
this
breaks
a smaller
number
of exchange
aberrations
a few
dicentrics(Figure
(Figure3B).
3B). Even
Even with
with this
chromosomal damage
damage and
and in
in contrast
contrast to
to published
published reports,
reports, we
we were
were unable
unable to
to demonstrate
demonstrate induction
induction of
of
chromosomal
DNA damage
damage response
response as
as measured
measured by
by phospho-ATM,
phospho-ATM, phospho-Chk1
phospho-Chk1 S345,
S345, or
or phospho-Chk2
phospho-Chk2 T68
T68 at
at
aa DNA
24 or
or 48
48 hh induction
induction with
with 11 g/mL
g/mL doxycycline
doxycycline (data
(data not
not shown).
shown). This
This may
may be
be aa result
result of
of the
the maximum
maximum
24
aberration frequency
frequency being
being less
less than
than one
one aberration
aberration per
per metaphase
metaphase which
which is
is equivalent
equivalent to
to only
only aa few
few cGy
cGy
aberration
of ionizing
ionizing radiation
radiation [18]
[18] or
or aa combination
combination of
of the
the different
different cell
cell lines
lines and
and different
different techniques
techniques employed
employed
of
(western blot
blot in
in our
our studies,
studies, immunofluorescence
immunofluorescencein
inpublished
publishedstudies).
studies).
(western
Although both
both cell
cell lines
lines exhibit
exhibit similar
similar levels
levels of
of chromosomal
chromosomal aberrations
aberrations in
in the
the absence
absence of
of
Although
V5-BRAF(V600E), the
the PMWK
PMWK cell
cell line
line exhibited
exhibited aa much
much higher
higher break
break frequency
frequency than
than the
the RPMI
RPMI cell
cell
V5-BRAF(V600E),
line after
after induction.
induction. This
This may
may represent
represent an
an underlying
underlying difference
difference in
in chromatin
chromatin architecture.
architecture. The
The PMWK
PMWK
line
cell line
polyploid
with
most
metaphases
having
aboutabout
90 chromosomes
while while
the RPMI
cell
line was
wasfound
foundtotobebe
polyploid
with
most
metaphases
having
90 chromosomes
the
cell
line
was
near
diploid.
The
total
frequency
of
the
aberrations
in
the
RPMI
line
did
not
increase
RPMI cell line was near diploid. The total frequency of the aberrations in the RPMI line did not increase
significantly with
with increasing
increasing expression
expression of
of the
the oncogenic
oncogenic BRAF.
BRAF.The
The aberrations
aberrations are
are unlikely
unlikely to
to be
be due
due
significantly
to an
an effect
effect of
of the
the doxycycline
doxycycline since
since incubation
incubation of
of RPMI8322
RPMI8322 ++ TetON
TetON cells,
cells, parents
parents of
of the
the RPMI8322
RPMI8322
to

Cancers 2015, 7
Cancers 2015, 7

1076
5

+
+ TetON
TetON ++ V5-BRAF(V600E)
V5-BRAF(V600E) cells,
cells, with
with doxycycline
doxycycline did
did not
not increase
increase aberrations
aberrations (Table
(Table S1).
S1). This
This is
is
the
first
direct
evidence
that
oncogenic
BRAF
is
clastogenic,
making
BRAF
a
potential
mutator.
the first direct evidence that oncogenic BRAF is clastogenic, making BRAF a potential mutator.

Figure
Oncogenic BRAF(V600E)
BRAF(V600E) Induced
(A) Representative
Representative metaphase
Figure 3.
3. Oncogenic
Induced Clastogenesis.
Clastogenesis. (A)
metaphase
images
of
each
cell
line
after
48
h
incubation
in
doxycycline;
(B)
Aberrations
images of each cell line after 48 h incubation in doxycycline; (B) Aberrations per
per
chromosome
for
each
cell
line.
Data
represents
50
metaphases
for
each
treatment.
chromosome for each cell line. Data represents 50 metaphases for each treatment.
2.3. UVB Sensitivity of Cell Lines

Melanoma progression
progression is
is linked
linked to
to DNA
DNA damage
damage caused
caused by
by exposure
exposure to
to ultraviolet
ultraviolet radiation
radiation [19].
[19].
Melanoma
Consistent with
with this
this is
is the
the observation
observation that
that in
in aa mouse
mouse model
model of
of melanoma,
melanoma, expression
expression of
of oncogenic
oncogenic
Consistent
BRAF results
results in
in increased
increased tumor
tumor burden
burden following
following exposure
exposure to
to UVB
UVB [20].
[20]. Therefore
Therefore it
it was
was of
of interest
interest
BRAF
to determine
determine if
if expression
expression of
of V5-BRAF(V600E)
V5-BRAF(V600E) sensitized
sensitized cells
cells to
to UV
UV exposure.
exposure. We
wished to
to use
use aa
to
We wished
dose of
of UVB
UVB that
that did
did not
not kill
kill all
all the
the cells
cells (as
(as dead
dead cells
cells do
do not
not play
play aa role
role in
in melanomagenesis)
melanomagenesis) but
but was
was
dose
in the
outside
during
thethe
summer
in
in
the realm
realm of
of what
whatwould
wouldbe
beexpected
expectedfor
fora aperson
persontotoreceive
receivefrom
frombeing
being
outside
during
summer

Cancers 2015, 7
Cancers 2015, 7

1077
6

in mid-latitudes. The sensitivity of the two melanoma cell lines to killing by UVB was determined as
mid-latitudes. The sensitivity of the two melanoma cell lines to killing by UVB was determined as
described in the Experimental section and is shown in Figure 4. From these data a D0 value, or dose to
described in the Experimental section and is shown in Figure 4. From these data a D0 value, or dose to
reduce the viable cell population to approximately 37%, was then calculated for each cell line according
reduce the viable cell population to approximately 37%, was then calculated for each cell line according
to published methods [21]. As previously published for UVC, the RPMI8322 line was found to be
to published methods [21]. As previously published for UVC, the RPMI8322 line was found to be very
2
very
sensitive
to exposure
to UVB,
exhibiting
, presumablydue
dueto
to defective
defective nucleotide
0 of 191 J/m
sensitive
to exposure
to UVB,
exhibiting
a Da0Dof
191 J/m2, presumably
nucleotide
2
excision
repair
[22].
PMWK
was
found
to
have
a
D
value
of
254
J/m
2. For subsequent experiments a
0
excision repair [22]. PMWK was found to have a D0 value of 254 J/m . For subsequent experiments a
fluence
fluence of
of UVB
UVB was
was chosen
chosen for
for each
each cell
cell line
line that
that resulted
resulted in
in approximately
approximately equal
equal killing.
killing.

Figure
UVB cytotoxicity
cytotoxicity of
of RPMI8322
RPMI8322 ++ TetON
TetON +
+ V5-BRAF(V600E)
V5-BRAF(V600E) and
Figure 4.
4. UVB
and PMWK
PMWK +
+
TetON
+
V5-BRAF(V600E)
cells.
Cells
were
seeded
at
colony
forming
density
and
exposed
TetON + V5-BRAF(V600E) cells. Cells were seeded at colony forming density and exposed
to
to UVB
UVB 24
24 hh later
later as
as described
described in
in the
the Experimental
Experimental section.
section. Expression
Expression of
of oncogenic
oncogenic BRAF
BRAF
was
was not
not induced
induced in
in these
these cells.
cells. Each
Each point
point represents
represents three
three to
to four
four independent
independent experiments.
experiments.
2.4. UVB Induced Aberrations

The melanoma
0, D
, or0D
of UVB
h after
cells
0, D
The
melanoma cells
cellswere
wereexposed
exposedto to
0, D
, 0orfluences
D0 fluences
of 24
UVB
24 seeding
h after the
seeding
0 , 0D
as described
in the Experimental
section. Metaphases
were prepared
h after 24
exposure,
h total
the
cells as described
in the Experimental
section. Metaphases
were24
prepared
h after 48
exposure,
culture
Thetime.
baseline
clastogenesis
resulting
from from
UVBUVB
exposure
in inthethe absence
of
48
h totaltime.
culture
The baseline
clastogenesis
resulting
exposure
absence of
V5-BRAF(V600E) is
is shown
shown in
in Figure
Figure 5.
5. The
The background
background aberration
aberration frequencies
frequencies in
in both
both cell
cell lines
lines were
were
V5-BRAF(V600E)
approximately equal,
equal, being
being 0.12
0.12 aberrations
aberrations per
per metaphase
metaphase and
and 0.1
0.1 aberrations
aberrations per
per metaphase
metaphase for
for the
the
approximately
PMWK and
and RPMI8322
RPMI8322 lines,
lines, respectively.
respectively. UVB
resulted in
in an
an increase
increase in
in the
the frequency
frequency of
of
PMWK
UVB exposure
exposure resulted
chromatid breaks
breaks and
and exchange
exchange aberrations
aberrations in
in both
both cell
cell lines
lines that
that was
was dose
dose dependent
dependent (Figure
(Figure 5B,C).
5B,C).
chromatid
Overall the
the PMWK
PMWK line
line exhibited
exhibited aa higher
higher aberration
aberration frequency
frequency than
than the
the RPMI8322
RPMI8322 line
line while
while the
the
Overall
RPMI8322 line
line exhibited
exhibited more
more exchange
exchange aberrations.
aberrations. The
increased aberration
aberration
RPMI8322
The observation
observation of
of the
the increased
frequency in
in the
the PMWK
PMWK cell
cell line
line was
was somewhat
somewhat surprising
surprising given
given that
that this
this line
line is
is more
more resistant
resistant to
to UVB
UVB
frequency
killing than
than the
the RPMI8322
RPMI8322 line
line (Figure
(Figure 4)
4) and
and has
has measurable
measurable nucleotide
nucleotide excision
excision repair
repair capacity
capacity [22].
[22].
killing

Cancers 2015, 7
Cancers 2015, 7

1078
7

Figure
5. 5.Chromosomal
after exposure
exposuretotoUVB.
UVB.(*)
(*)No
Noaberrations
aberrations
Figure
Chromosomalaberrations
aberrations found
found 24
24 h
h after
found.
(A)Representative
Representativemetaphase
metaphaseimages
images
found.50
50metaphases
metaphases scored
scored for
for each
each condition.
condition. (A)
showing
aberrations;
andfrequency
frequencyininPMWK
PMWK+ +TetON
TetON
showing
aberrations;(B)
(B)Chart
Chartshowing
showing type
type of damage
damage and
+ V5-BRAF(V600E)
damageand
andfrequency
frequencyininRPMI8322
RPMI8322
+ V5-BRAF(V600E)cells;
cells;(C)
(C)Chart
Chartshowing
showing type of damage
+ TetON
+ V5-BRAF(V600E)cells.
cells.
+ TetON
+ V5-BRAF(V600E)
2.5. Oncogenic BRAF Sensitizes Cells to UVB Clastogenesis
2.5. Oncogenic BRAF Sensitizes Cells to UVB Clastogenesis
To determine if expression of oncogenic BRAF had an effect on UVB clastogenesis, cells cultured in
To determine if expression of oncogenic BRAF had an effect on UVB clastogenesis, cells cultured
an amount of doxycycline (1 g/mL PMWK and 0.1 g/mL RPMI8322; Figure 1) that results in equal
in an amount of doxycycline (1 g/mL PMWK and 0.1 g/mL RPMI8322; Figure 1) that results in
induction of V5-BRAF(V600E) and exposed to UVB as before were scored for chromosomal aberrations
equal
V5-BRAF(V600E)
andmetaphases
exposed toare
UVB
as in
before
were
scored
24 hinduction
after UVBofexposure.
Representative
shown
Figure
6A for
bothfor
cellchromosomal
lines. Like
aberrations
24
h
after
UVB
exposure.
Representative
metaphases
are
shown
in
Figure
6A
for both cell
UVB alone, the PMWK (Figure 6B) line exhibited a break frequency much higher than the RPMI8322
lines.
UVB
thecells
PMWK
(Figure
6B) lineBRAF
exhibited
a breaktofrequency
much
higher
than
line Like
(Figure
6C).alone,
PMWK
expressing
oncogenic
and exposed
a D0 of UVB
could
not be
theaccurately
RPMI8322
line This
(Figure
PMWK
expressing
oncogenic
BRAF
andinexposed
a D0 of
scored.
dose6C).
of UVB
in thecells
presence
of oncogenic
BRAF
resulted
very fewto
scorable
UVB
could notwith
be every
accurately
scored. in
This
dose
UVB in the
presencemultiple
of oncogenic
BRAFAtresulted
metaphases
chromosome
those
fewofmetaphases
containing
aberrations.
D0
in very
few0 scorable
every
chromosome
in those
fewPMWK
metaphases
containing
multiple
and D
both linesmetaphases
exhibited awith
similar
pattern
of damage
with the
line now
also showing
exchange aberrations.
aberrations.
At D0 and D0 both lines exhibited a similar pattern of damage with the PMWK line now
also showing exchange aberrations.

Cancers 2015, 7
Cancers 2015, 7

1079
8

Figure
Expression of
of V5-BRAF(V600E)
V5-BRAF(V600E) for
Figure 6.
6. Expression
for 24
24 hh followed
followed by
by exposure
exposure to
to UVB
UVB results
results
in
enhanced
clastogenesis.
50
metaphases
scored
for
each
condition.
(A)
Representative
in enhanced clastogenesis. 50 metaphases scored for each condition. (A) Representative
metaphase
+ TetON
+ V5-BRAF(V600E)
cells.
(*)
metaphase images
imagesshowing
showingaberrations.
aberrations.(B)
(B)PMWK
PMWK
+ TetON
+ V5-BRAF(V600E)
cells.
Metaphases
werewere
too damaged
to score.
aberrations
per chromosome.
(C) Chart(C)
showing
(*) Metaphases
too damaged
to >7
score.
>7 aberrations
per chromosome.
Chart
type
of damage
frequency
in RPMI8322
+ TetON +
cells.
showing
type ofand
damage
and frequency
in RPMI8322
+ V5-BRAF(V600E)
TetON + V5-BRAF(V600E)
cells.

The fold-induction
fold-induction of
of chromosomal
chromosomal aberrations
aberrations for
for the
the different
different treatments
treatments is
is shown
shown in
in Table
Table1.
1. The
The
The
first three
three columns
columns show
show the
the effect
effect of
of UVB
UVB exposure
exposureat
at D
D00 and
and D
D00 as
as well
well as
as the
the effect
effect of
of oncogenic
oncogenic
first
BRAF induction
induction (Dox)
(Dox) on
on the
the PMWK
PMWK and
and RPMI8322
RPMI8322 cell
cell lines.
lines. At
At the
the lowest
lowest fluence
fluence of
of UVB
UVB both
both cell
cell
BRAF
lines exhibited
exhibited aa similar
similar induction
induction of
of aberrations.
aberrations. Combining
Combining the
the D
D00 of
of UVB
UVB with
with oncogenic
oncogenic BRAF
BRAF
lines

Cancers 2015, 7

1080

expression, the resulting induction of aberrations appears to be additive for both cell lines. This is seen in
Table 1 where the frequency of aberrations induced by oncogenic BRAF alone was subtracted from the
frequency of aberrations induced when oncogenic BRAF was combined with UVB exposure (columns
4 and 5). However, increasing the UVB dose to D0 in cells expressing oncogenic BRAF resulted in a
fold-increase in the aberrations that was 3.6 and 7.6 times greater than that induced by doxycycline alone
for the PMWK and RPMI8322 cells respectively (Table 1 column 5). At this dose of UVB, combining the
two treatments resulted in a synergistic response. This increased sensitivity to ultraviolet light is likely
the underlying reason the number of nevi a person carries coupled with sun exposure is the greatest risk
factor for melanoma. This finding also fulfills the requirements for oncogenic BRAF to impart a mutator
phenotype to cells harboring the mutation, as postulated by Loeb and colleagues [8,9].
Table 1. Effect of Oncogenic BRAF on UVB Induced Aberrations.
Treatment/Sham
D0

D0

* Dox

D0 + * Dox

D0 + * Dox

PMWK

4.5

16

7.3

10

28

RPMI8322

5.0

4.4

3.0

4.6

23

(Freq-Dox Freq)/Sham

The first three columns show the induction of aberrations caused by UVB or oncogenic BRAF alone. The last
two columns show the induction of aberrations attributable to oncogenic BRAF in cells exposed to both UVB
and dox. () PMWK + TetON + V5-BRAF(V600E) cells. () RPMI8322 + TetON + V5-BRAF(V600E) cells.
(*) Doxycycline. 1 g/mL for PMWK cells; 0.1 g/mL for RPMI8322 cells.

2.6. Mechanisms of BRAF(V600E) Induced Sensitivity

The mechanism responsible for the oncogenic BRAF-induced aberrations and the synergy with UVB
is not obvious. To determine if the sensitivity to UV observed in the oncogenic BRAF-expressing cells
was due to alterations in the repair capacity of the cells we measured nucleotide excision repair (NER)
in the V5-BRAF(V600E) expressing RPMI and PMWK cells exposed to a D0 dose of UVB. Cells were
assayed for repair of CPDs and 6-4PP as previously described [22]. Induction of oncogenic BRAF did
not alter repair of UVB-induced DNA damage in these cells (data not shown).
2.6.1. Alteration of BRCA1 Function
The exchange aberrations and breaks observed after induction of V5-BRAF(V600E) and the increased
sensitivity to UVB suggested that misregulation of BRCA1 might be a possible cause. BRCA1 is
required for efficient repair of UV damage [23] as well as regulation of homologous recombination [24].
Indeed a publication suggested that oncogenic BRAF could reduce the amount of BRCA1 associated
with chromatin by down-regulation of BRIP1 [12]. We measured the amount of cytoplasmic and
chromatin associated BRCA1 and BRIP1 in cells 24 and 48 h after induction of the V5-BRAF(V600E).
In three independent experiments using RPMI8322 + TetON + V5-BRAF(V600E) and PMWK +
TetON + V5-BRAF(V600E) cell lines, we found that that amount of BRCA1 in the cells after
V5-BRAF(V600E) induction was variable and did decrease with time in doxycycline. Figure 7 shows a
representative western Blot from these experiments. To explore the possibility that this variability was

Cancers 2015, 7
Cancers 2015, 7

1081
10

due to the cell type, we constructed a normal human fibroblast line to express V5-BRAF(V600E) as
type, we constructed a normal human fibroblast line to express V5-BRAF(V600E) as described in the
described in the Experimental section. This line induces V5-BRAF(V600E) similar to that of PMWK
Experimental section. This line induces V5-BRAF(V600E) similar to that of PMWK + TetON +
+ TetON + V5-BRAF(V600E) and this induction causes oncogene-induced growth arrest as seen by
V5-BRAF(V600E) and this induction causes oncogene-induced growth arrest as seen by an inhibition
an inhibition in colony formation (Figure S1). The location and amount of BRCA1 and BRIP1 in the
in colony formation (Figure S1). The location and amount of BRCA1 and BRIP1 in the fibroblast line
fibroblast
line was
with in
that
observed
in Figure
(Figure
S2).suggested
These results
suggested that
the
was consistent
withconsistent
that observed
Figure
7 (Figure
S2). 7These
results
the possibility
possibility
the amount
of BRCA1
might
varying
as awell
result
howwere
well growing.
the cells were growing.
the amountthat
of BRCA1
might
be varying
as abe
result
of how
theofcells

Figure
7. Western
Western
grown
for24(A)
h in doxycycline
48 h in
Figure 7.
blotblot
cellscells
grown
for (A)
h in 24
doxycycline
or (B) 48 horin(B)
doxycycline.
doxycycline.
Loadingtonormalized
toCyto
cell number.
Cyto
cytoplasm;
Chrm
chromatin
fraction.
Loading normalized
cell number.
cytoplasm;
Chrm
chromatin
fraction.
Fractionation
Fractionation
described
in the Experimental
section.
described in the
Experimental
section.

BRCA1 is
is known
known to
to exhibit
exhibit cell
cell cycle
cycle dependent
dependent expression
expression [25,26].
[25,26]. To
To test
test whether
whether proliferation
proliferation
BRCA1
affected expression
expression of
of BRCA1
BRCA1 RPMI8322
RPMI8322 ++ TetON
TetON ++ V5-BRAF(V600E)
V5-BRAF(V600E) cells
cells were
were grown
grown with
with
affected
increasing amounts
amounts of
of doxycycline
doxycycline and
and labeled
labeled with
with BrdU
BrdU to
to determine
determine the
the S-phase
S-phase content
content prior
prior to
to
increasing
harvest. Figure
Figure 88 shows
shows the
the total
total amount
amount of
of BRCA1
BRCA1 in
in RPMI8322
RPMI8322 +
+ TetON
TetON ++ V5-BRAF(V600E)
V5-BRAF(V600E) cells,
cells,
harvest.
normalized to
to topoisomerase
topoisomerase II,
II, aa chromatin
went down
down as
as the
the amount
amount of
of V5-BRAF(V600E)
V5-BRAF(V600E)
normalized
chromatin marker,
marker, went
went up.
up. However,
the highest
highest induction
induction of
of V5-BRAF(V600E)
V5-BRAF(V600E) resulted
resulted in
in an
an 84%
84% reduction
reduction in
in S-phase
S-phase
went
However, the
and aa 73%
73% reduction
reduction in
in the
the amount
amount of
of BRCA1
BRCA1 in
in the
the cells.
cells. Based
Based on
on these
these results
results we
we could
could not
not rule
rule out
out
and
oncogene-induced growth
growth arrest
arrest as
as the
the cause
cause of
of the
the reduction
reduction in
in BRCA1
BRCA1 expression.
expression.
oncogene-induced

Cancers 2015, 7
Cancers 2015, 7

1082
11

Figure
Correlation ofof the
the amount
amount of
of BRCA1
BRCA1 present
present in
in RPMI8322
RPMI8322 +
+ TetON
Figure 8.
8. Correlation
TetON ++
V5-BRAF(V600E)
V5-BRAF(V600E) cells
cells with
with S-phase
S-phase fraction
fraction of
of the
the cell
cell population.
population. (A)
(A) FLOW
FLOW cytometry
cytometry
profiles
profiles of
of cells
cells incubated
incubated with
with increasing
increasing amounts
amounts of
of doxycycline.
doxycycline. (B)
(B) Amount
Amount of
of BRCA1
BRCA1
present
as
a
percentage
of
the
no
doxycycline
control.
(C)
Western
Blot
used
to
generate
present as a percentage of the no doxycycline control. (C) Western Blot used to generate
chart
chart in
in panel
panel B.
B.

2.6.2. Alteration
Alteration of
of Chk1
Chk1 Signaling
Signaling
2.6.2.
While itit did
did not
not appear
appear likely
likely that
that the
the amount
amount or
or location
location of
of BRCA1,
BRCA1, or
or alterations
alterations in
in NER,
NER, were
were
While
responsible for
BRAF-induced
clastogenesis
or UVB
sensitivity,
anotheranother
possibility
was our
responsible
forthe
theoncogenic
oncogenic
BRAF-induced
clastogenesis
or UVB
sensitivity,
possibility
previously
published published
observationobservation
that expression
oncogenic of
BRAF
attenuates
the DNA
damage-induced
was
our previously
thatofexpression
oncogenic
BRAF
attenuates
the DNA
G2
checkpoint
response
[14].
Chk1
is
a
central
protein
in
the
G2
checkpoint
response.
Any
alterations
damage-induced G2 checkpoint response [14]. Chk1 is a central protein in the G2 checkpoint response.
in the
regulation
of Chk1
could
this impact
checkpoint.
Consistent Consistent
with the possibility
of Chk1
Any
alterations
in the
regulation
of impact
Chk1 could
this checkpoint.
with the possibility
misregulation
was the was
observation
with all with
threeall
cell
lines
that
induction
of V5-BRAF(V600E)
always
of
Chk1 misregulation
the observation
three
cell
lines
that induction
of V5-BRAF(V600E)
resultedresulted
in a substantial
increaseincrease
in the amount
of pChk1
(S280).(S280).
Figure Figure
9 is a composite
westernwestern
blot of
always
in a substantial
in the amount
of pChk1
9 is a composite
all three
lines
with orwith
without
doxycycline
for 24for
or 24
48 or
h. As
shown
in Figure
9C, all
three
blot
of allcell
three
cellgrown
lines grown
or without
doxycycline
48 h.
As shown
in Figure
9C,
all
cell lines
showed
an increase
in the
of pChk1
(S280)
at both
24 24
andand
48 48
h. The
fold
increase
in
three
cell lines
showed
an increase
in amount
the amount
of pChk1
(S280)
at both
h. The
fold
increase
thethe
F1-hTERT
in the
the two
two
in
F1-hTERT+ +TetON
TetON++V5-BRAF(V600E)
V5-BRAF(V600E)cells
cellswas
wasalways
alwaysslightly
slightly less
less than
than that
that seen
seen in
melanoma lines.
lines. The
have aa slightly
slightly higher
higher amount
amount of
of pChk1
pChk1
melanoma
The apparent
apparent cause
cause of
of this
this is
is the
the fibroblasts
fibroblasts have
(S280) in
in the
the uninduced
uninduced cells.
cells.
(S280)

Cancers 2015, 7
Cancers 2015, 7

1083
12

Figure
Induction of
Figure 9.9. Induction
of Chk1
Chk1 pS280
pS280 by
by V5-BRAF(V600E).
V5-BRAF(V600E). Cells
Cells were
were incubated
incubated in
in the
the
amount
of
doxycycline
shown
for
24
h
(panel
A),
or
48
h
(panel
B).
Panel
C
is
a
chart
of
the
amount of doxycycline shown for 24 h (panel A), or 48 h (panel B). Panel C is a chart of the
fold-induction
fold-inductionof
ofChk1
Chk1pS280
pS280normalized
normalizedtotoactin
actinand
andtotal
totalChk1.
Chk1.

Chk1 S280
S280isisphosphorylated
phosphorylatedby
byAKT1
AKT1[27]
[27]and
andp90RSK1
p90RSK1[28].
[28]. Induction
Induction of
of Chk1
Chk1 pS280
pS280through
through
Chk1
active AKT1
AKT1 by
hashas
been
shown
to result
in a reduction
in pChk1
pS345
active
by inhibition
inhibitionorordepletion
depletionofofPTEN
PTEN
been
shown
to result
in a reduction
in pChk1
kinasekinase
activity
one hour
after after
exposure
to UVC
andand
a reduced
after
pS345
activity
one hour
exposure
to UVC
a reducedamount
amountofofpChk1
pChk1pS354
pS354 24
24 hh after
exposure[27,29].
[27,29]. Consistent
Consistent with
with this
this was
was the
the observation
observation that
that Chk1
Chk1 phosphorylated
phosphorylated atat S280
S280 was
wasless
less
exposure
likelyto
toform
formcomplexes
complexeswith
withother
otherproteins
proteins[30].
[30]. The
TheS280
S280phosphorylation
phosphorylationof
ofChk1
Chk1in
inthe
theoncogenic
oncogenic
likely
BRAF-expressingcells
cellsisisunlikely
unlikelyto
toproceed
proceedthrough
throughAKT1
AKT1as
asoncogenic
oncogenicBRAF
BRAFinhibits
inhibitsAKT1
AKT1activity
activity
BRAF-expressing
inmelanoma
melanomacells
cellsand
andprobably
probablyany
anycell
cellthrough
throughinhibition
inhibitionof
ofRICTOR
RICTOR[31].
[31]. However,
However,atatthe
thesame
sametime
time
in
oncogenic BRAF
BRAF activates
activates p90RSK1
p90RSK1 through
through the
the phosphorylation
phosphorylation of
of p90RSK1
p90RSK1 by
by ERK
ERK [32]
[32] which
which
oncogenic
would then
thenlead
leadtotophosphorylation
phosphorylationof
ofChk1
Chk1on
onS280.
S280. Similar
Similar to
to the
the finding
finding that
that AKT1
AKT1 induced
inducedChk1
Chk1
would
pS280 results
results in
in an
an attenuation
attenuation of
of Chk1
Chk1 kinase
kinase activity,
activity,another
anotherstudy
studyusing
usingmelanoma
melanomacells
cellsfound
foundthat
that
pS280

Cancers 2015, 7
Cancers 2015, 7

1084
13

inhibition of RSK1 or MEK results in a reduction in the amount of Chk1 pS280 and an increase in the
inhibition of RSK1 or MEK results in a reduction in the amount of Chk1 pS280 and an increase in the
amount of Chk1 kinase activity [33].
amount of Chk1 kinase activity [33].
2.6.3. Alteration of SWI/SNF Chromatin Remodeling Complex
2.6.3. Alteration of SWI/SNF Chromatin Remodeling Complex
A final possibility for explaining the clastogenesis induced by the oncogenic BRAF and the synergy
A final possibility for explaining the clastogenesis induced by the oncogenic BRAF and the synergy
with UVB exposure is alteration of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex. As shown in Figures 3,
with UVB exposure is alteration of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex. As shown in
5Figures
and 6 3,
the5,PMWK
cellPMWK
line exhibited
frequencies
of chromosomal
aberrationsaberrations
from oncogenic
and 6 the
cell linehigher
exhibited
higher frequencies
of chromosomal
from
BRAF
or
UVB
alone
and
when
combined.
A
possible
explanation
for
this
observation
is
that
the
PMWK
oncogenic BRAF or UVB alone and when combined. A possible explanation for this observation is that
cells
do not cells
express
(Figure
S3). (Figure
Loss of S3).
BRG1
hasofbeen
shown
increase
of
the PMWK
do BRG1
not express
BRG1
Loss
BRG1
has to
been
showntheto frequency
increase the
DNA
damage
after exposure
to UVC
[34]. toWhen
the When
cells used
in this
examined
for
frequency
of DNA
damage after
exposure
UVCall[34].
all the
cellsstudy
used were
in this
study were
BRG1
andfor
BAF180
it was
found that
expression
of oncogenic
reduced BRAF
the expression
examined
BRG1expression
and BAF180
expression
it was
found that
expressionBRAF
of oncogenic
reduced
of
BRG1
in
the
two
cell
lines
that
expressed
it
and
reduced
the
expression
of
BAF180
in
all
three
the expression of BRG1 in the two cell lines that expressed it and reduced the expression of BAF180 incell
all
lines
(Figure
10).
three cell lines (Figure 10).

Figure
Reduction inin BRG1
BRG1 and
and BAF180
BAF180 in
in cells
cells expressing
expressing oncogenic
oncogenic BRAF.
BRAF.
Figure 10.
10. Reduction
PMWK:
TetON +
+ V5-BRAF(V600E)
V5-BRAF(V600E) cells;
cells; RPMI8322:
RPMI8322:RPMI8322
RPMI8322+ +TetON
TetON+
PMWK: PMWK
PMWK +
+ TetON
+
V5-BRAF(V600E)
cells.
Western
whole
lysates
cells
grown
h
V5-BRAF(V600E)
cells.
(A)(A)
Western
blotblot
of of
whole
cellcell
lysates
of of
cells
grown
forfor
48 48
h in
in
doxycycline.
PMWK
express
BRG1
protein.
(B) Quantification
of western
doxycycline.
(*) (*)
PMWK
doesdoes
not not
express
BRG1
protein.
(B) Quantification
of western
blot,
blot,
density
normalized
to actin.
with with
pixelpixel
density
normalized
to actin.

The synergistic
aberrations
by UVB
in cells
oncogenic
BRAF
The
synergistic induction
inductionofofchromosomal
chromosomal
aberrations
by UVB
in expressing
cells expressing
oncogenic
suggestssuggests
that developing
moles moles
are sensitive
targets
for UVB-induced
chromosomal
damage.
As
BRAF
that developing
are sensitive
targets
for UVB-induced
chromosomal
damage.
melanocytic
nevinevi
commonly
develop
during
As
melanocytic
commonly
develop
duringchildhood
childhoodand
andmost
mostnevi
nevi express
express oncogenic
oncogenic BRAF,
BRAF,
strategies for
for prevention
prevention of
of melanoma
melanoma must
must emphasize
emphasize protecting
protecting children
children against
against damaging
damaging sunburns.
sunburns.
strategies

Cancers 2015, 7

1085

This study also suggests possible implications in other cancers such as colon cancer where the oncogenic
BRAF mutation has been reported in 70% of the tumors exhibiting the highest level of microsatellite
instability [35]. This may imply that the oncogenic BRAF may act synergistically in other cancers to
ultimately increase the mutation frequency in these tumors.
3. Experimental Section
3.1. Molecular Biology
A V5-BRAF(V600E) expression vector was constructed by cloning a synthetic V5-BRAF(V600E)
DNA cassette into the pRetro-X-Advanced (Clonetech, Mountain View, CA, USA) vector. Vector
construction and sequence verification of the vector was done by Blue Heron Bio (Bothell, WA, USA).
3.2. Cell Culture and Viral Transduction
Melanoma cell lines RPMI8322 and PMWK were grown in DMEM high glucose (Life Technologies,
Carlsbad, CA, USA or Cellgro, Manassas, VA, USA) supplemented with 10% Benchmark fetal calf
serum (Gemini, West Sacramento, CA, USA), and 200 mM L-glutamine (Life Technologies) at 37 C in
a 5% CO2 atmosphere. Packaging of retroviral vectors and transduction of cells was done as previously
described [36]. The cell lines were first transduced with the Retro-X-TetON vector (Clonetech).
Following selection in 500 g/mL G418 for two weeks the cells were then transduced with the
V5-BRAF(V600E) expression vector. The V5-BRAF(V600E) vector was selected for two weeks in
150 g/mL hygromycin B.
3.3. Cytotoxicity Assays
The ability of the oncogenic V5-BRAF(V600E) to reduce clonogenic survival was assessed as
follows. Cells were trypsonized to achieve a single cell suspension. The viable cell count was determined
by trypan blue exclusion and counting cells in a heamocytometer. Three hundred viable cells were seeded
per 10 cm diameter dish in triplicate in 10 mL of media containing various amounts of doxycycline. The
media was changed on day seven, maintaining the doxycycline. On day 14 the colonies were fixed and
stained with a solution of 40% methanol and 0.05% crystal violet.
UVB cytotoxicity was determined by seeding 300 viable cells per dish as above. Twenty-four
hours after seeding the media was removed and the cells exposed to various fluences of UVB with the
lids on the dishes in an open cabinet to the output from two high intensity broad range UVB lamps
(FS20T12/UVB, National Biological Corp., Cleveland, OH, USA) at a fluence of 3.13 J/s/m2 . By
keeping the lids on the dishes all wavelengths less than about 300 nM were filtered out resulting in a
UVB profile more similar to that found in sunlight [37]. The UVB source was calibrated with a UVX
Radiometer (Ultra-Violet Products, Inc., Upland, CA, USA) using an UVX-31 sensor. The cells were
grown for 14 days after exposure and then stained as described above. Calculations to determine the D0
value were done as previously published [21].

Cancers 2015, 7

1086

3.4. Western Blotting

Whole cell extracts were prepared by solubilizing cell pellets in urea buffer (8 M urea, 100 mM
monobasic sodium phosphate, 10 mM tris pH 7.0) for 30 min on ice prior to protein quantification.
Proteins were quantified using a Qubitr (Life Technologies) according to manufactures protocol. Cells
were fractionated into cytoplasmic and chromatin fractions by previously published methods [38].
Primary antibodies for western blots used in this study are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Primary antibodies used in the study.
Antibody

Dilution

Source

Catalogue Number

BRCA1

1:1000

Milli-Pore

07-434

Top2

1:1000

BD Transduction Labs

611493

BRIP1/BACH1

1:1000

Cell Signaling

4578

BRG1

1:1000

Bethyl

A300-813A

BRAF

1:1000

Cell Signaling

9434

V5

1:1000

Sigma-Aldrich

012M4796

Chk1

1:1000

Santa Cruz

SC-8408

pChk1 (S345)

1:1000

Cell Signaling

2348

pChk1 (S280)

1:1000

Epitomics

2643-1

Mek1/2

1:1000

Cell Signaling

4694

pMek1/2 (S217/S221)

1:1000

Cell Signaling

9154

Pan-Actin

1:5000

Novus Biologics

NB600-535

The primary antibodies were detected using fluorescently labeled anti-mouse and anti-rabbit
secondary antibodies at a dilution of 1:10,000 and obtained from Li-Cor (Goat Anti-Mouse IRDye
680RD; Cat.#926-68070 and Goat Anti-Rabbit IRDye 800CW; Cat.#926-32211). The proteins were
visualized by scanning the blots on a Li-Cor Odysseyr (Lincoln, NE, USA scanner. Images were
quantified using the Visual Studio 4.0 software package (Li-Cor) unless noted otherwise.
4. Conclusions
Expression of oncogenic BRAF(V600E) was clastogenic in two human melanoma cell lines. The
melanoma cell lines provided an opportunity to study mitotic chromosome structure after induction of the
oncogene but prior to cessation of cell division. Equivalent studies were done with a TERT-expressing,
immortal human melanocyte line but no mitotic cells could be recovered two days after induction of
BRAF(V600E) (results not shown). As BRAF(V600E) attenuated the DNA damage G2 checkpoint [14]
it may be that the relaxation of this checkpoint permitted the analysis of mitotic chromosomes in addition
to sensitizing cells to UVB-induced clastogenesis. Oncogenic BRAF(V600E) sensitized the melanoma
cells to exposure to doses of UVB that would be expected to result in only mild erythema in most
Caucasians [39]. The type of DNA damage observed in the BRAF(V600E) expressing cells exposed
to UVB radiation was similar to that observed in cells lacking normal BRCA1 regulation [23]. This is
consistent with a publication demonstrating that oncogenic RAS and BRAF both cause misregulation of

Cancers 2015, 7

1087

BRCA1 through a reduction in BRIP1 [12]. However, we were unable to demonstrate that this was due
to BRAF and instead conclude that the reduction in BRCA1 was a result of cells exiting the cell cycle
(Figure 8).
We have previously reported that expression of oncogenic BRAF attenuates the DNA damage induced
G2 checkpoint response [14]. Oncogenic BRAF induced phosphorylation of Chk1 at S280 (Figure 9).
This form of Chk1 has been reported to be altered in its function or regulation [27,29,30]. Finally, in
PMWK + TetON + V5-BRAF(V600E) cells, induction of oncogenic BRAF alone, exposure to UVB
alone or induction of oncogenic BRAF combined with exposure to UVB resulted in more chromosomal
aberrations than that observed in the RPMI8322 + TetON + V5-BRAF(V600E) cells. Both these lines
induced Chk1 pS280 equally suggesting that the potential altered regulation of Chk1 was not the entire
mechanism. Alterations in the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex have been reported to sensitize
cells to UV radiation and attenuate the DNA damage G2 checkpoint response [34,40]. PMWK +
TetON + V5-BRAF(V600E) cells were found to not express BRG1. Unexpectedly RPMI8322 + TetON
+ V5-BRAF(V600E) cells were found to reduce the amount of BRG1 after induction of oncogenic
BRAF (Figure 10). Both cell lines exhibited reduced levels of BAF180 following V5-BRAF(V600E)
expression. This is the first report linking the MAP kinase pathway to the chromatin remodeling
pathway. Expression of oncogenic BRAF in cells results in elevated levels of Chk1pS280 and reduced
levels of BRG1 and BAF180 associated with attenuation of the G2 checkpoint response, clastogenesis,
and UVB sensitivity. While the cells used in this study were melanoma cells it is plausible that this
phenomenon will occur in melanocytes contained within nevi, since these melanocytes primarily contain
the oncogenic form of BRAF. Further studies will be required to establish the potential role of BRAF
induced clastogenesis and BRAF induced UVB sensitivity to the progression of melanoma from nevi.
However these data present an intriguing possibility for explaining the link between the risk associated
with increased nevi and the number of sunburns.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported in part by PHS grants ES10126, CA16086 and ES014635 to W.K.K.
and NIEHS (4R00ES022640) to S.G. The authors thank Bernard Weissman for the BRG1 antibody.
The UNC FLOW Cytometry Core Facility is supported in part by an NCI Center Core Support Grant
(P30CA06086) to the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center.
Author Contributions
Dennis Simpson conceived and designed the experiments; Dennis Simpson, Nathaly Lemonie,
David Morgan, and Shobhan Gaddameedhi performed the experiments; Dennis Simpson, and William
Kaufmann analyzed the data; Dennis Simpson wrote the paper.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Cancers 2015, 7

1088

References
1. Pollock, P.M.; Harper, U.L.; Hansen, K.S.; Yudt, L.M.; Stark, M.; Robbins, C.M.; Moses, T.Y.;
Hostetter, G.; Wagner, U.; Kakareka, J.; et al. High frequency of braf mutations in nevi. Nat. Genet.
2003, 33, 1920. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Cantwell-Dorris, E.R.; OLeary, J.J.; Sheils, O.M. BRAFV600E: Implications for carcinogenesis
and molecular therapy. Mol. Cancer Ther. 2011, 10, 385394. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Safaee Ardekani, G.; Jafarnejad, S.M.; Tan, L.; Saeedi, A.; Li, G. The prognostic value of braf
mutation in colorectal cancer and melanoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE
2012, 7, e47054. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Thomas, N.E.; Edmiston, S.N.; Alexander, A.; Millikan, R.C.; Groben, P.A.; Hao, H.; Tolbert, D.;
Berwick, M.; Busam, K.; Begg, C.B.; et al. Number of nevi and early-life ambient UV exposure
are associated with BRAF-mutant melanoma. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2007, 16, 991.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Solus, J.F.; Kraft, S. Ras, Raf, and Map kinase in melanoma. Adv. Anat. Pathol. 2013, 20, 217226.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Bianchi-Smiraglia, A.; Nikiforov, M.A. Controversial aspects of oncogene-induced senescence.
Cell Cycle 2012, 11, 41474151. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Tran, S.L.; Haferkamp, S.; Scurr, L.L.; Gowrishankar, K.; Becker, T.M.; Desilva, C.;
Thompson, J.F.; Scolyer, R.A.; Kefford, R.F.; Rizos, H. Absence of distinguishing senescence traits
in human melanocytic nevi. J. Investig. Dermatol. 2012, 132, 22262234. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Loeb, L.A. Mutator phenotype may be required for multistage carcinogenesis. Cancer Res. 1991,
51, 30753079. [PubMed]
9. Bielas, J.H.; Loeb, L.A. Mutator phenotype in cancer: Timing and perspectives. Environ. Mol.
Mutagen. 2005, 45, 206213. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Mitsutake, N.; Knauf, J.A.; Mitsutake, S.; Mesa, C., Jr.; Zhang, L.; Fagin, J.A. Conditional
BRAFV600E expression induces DNA synthesis, apoptosis, dedifferentiation, and chromosomal
instability in thyroid pccl3 cells. Cancer Res. 2005, 65, 24652473. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Sheu, J.J.; Guan, B.; Tsai, F.J.; Hsiao, E.Y.; Chen, C.M.; Seruca, R.; Wang, T.L.; Shih, I.-M. Mutant
braf induces DNA strand breaks, activates DNA damage response pathway, and up-regulates
glucose transporter-1 in nontransformed epithelial cells. Am. J. Pathol. 2012, 180, 11791188.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Tu, Z.; Aird, K.M.; Bitler, B.G.; Nicodemus, J.P.; Beeharry, N.; Xia, B.; Yen, T.J.; Zhang, R.
Oncogenic Ras regulates brip1 expression to induce dissociation of brca1 from chromatin, inhibit
DNA repair, and promote senescence. Dev. Cell. 2011, 21, 10771091. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Fabbro, M.; Rodriguez, J.A.; Baer, R.; Henderson, B.R. Bard1 induces brca1 intranuclear foci
formation by increasing ring-dependent brca1 nuclear import and inhibiting brca1 nuclear export.
J. Biol. Chem. 2002, 277, 2131521324. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Omolo, B.; Carson, C.; Chu, H.; Zhou, Y.; Simpson, D.A.; Hesse, J.E.; Paules, R.S.; Nyhan, K.C.;
Ibrahim, J.G.; Kaufmann, W.K. A prognostic signature of g(2) checkpoint function in melanoma
cell lines. Cell Cycle 2013, 12, 10711082. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Cancers 2015, 7

1089

15. Carson, C.; Omolo, B.; Chu, H.; Zhou, Y.; Sambade, M.J.; Peters, E.C.; Tompkins, P.;
Simpson, D.A.; Thomas, N.E.; Fan, C.; et al. A prognostic signature of defective p53-dependent
g1 checkpoint function in melanoma cell lines. Pigment. Cell. Melanoma Res. 2012, 25, 514526.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Kaufmann, W.K.; Nevis, K.R.; Qu, P.; Ibrahim, J.G.; Zhou, T.; Zhou, Y.; Simpson, D.A.;
Helms-Deaton, J.; Cordeiro-Stone, M.; Moore, D.T.; et al. Defective cell cycle checkpoint
functions in melanoma are associated with altered patterns of gene expression. J. Investig.
Dermatol. 2008, 128, 175187. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Sambade, M.J.; Peters, E.C.; Thomas, N.E.; Kaufmann, W.K.; Kimple, R.J.; Shields, J.M.
Melanoma cells show a heterogeneous range of sensitivity to ionizing radiation and are
radiosensitized by inhibition of B-RAF with PLX-4032. Radiother. Oncol. 2011, 98, 394399.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Kaufmann, W.K.; Filatov, L.; Oglesbee, S.E.; Simpson, D.A.; Lotano, M.A.; McKeen, H.D.;
Sawyer, L.R.; Moore, D.T.; Millikan, R.C.; Cordeiro-Stone, M.; et al. Radiation clastogenesis
and cell cycle checkpoint function as functional markers of breast cancer risk. Carcinogenesis
2006, 27, 25192527. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Gilchrest, B.A.; Eller, M.S.; Geller, A.C.; Yaar, M. The pathogenesis of melanoma induced by
ultraviolet radiation. N. Engl. J. Med. 1999, 340, 13411348. [PubMed]
20. Viros, A.; Sanchez-Laorden, B.; Pedersen, M.; Furney, S.J.; Rae, J.; Hogan, K.; Ejiama, S.;
Girotti, M.R.; Cook, M.; Dhomen, N.; et al. Ultraviolet radiation accelerates braf-driven
melanomagenesis by targeting tp53. Nature 2014, 511, 478482. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Puck, T.T.; Marcus, P.I. Action of X-rays on mammalian cells. J. Exp. Med. 1956, 103, 653666.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Gaddameedhi, S.; Kemp, M.G.; Reardon, J.T.; Shields, J.M.; Smith-Roe, S.L.; Kaufmann, W.K.;
Sancar, A. Similar nucleotide excision repair capacity in melanocytes and melanoma cells.
Cancer Res. 2010, 70, 49224930. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Pathania, S.; Nguyen, J.; Hill, S.J.; Scully, R.; Adelmant, G.O.; Marto, J.A.; Feunteun, J.;
Livingston, D.M. Brca1 is required for postreplication repair after UV-induced DNA damage.
Mol. Cell. 2011, 44, 235251. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Yang, E.S.; Nowsheen, S.; Rahman, M.A.; Cook, R.S.; Xia, F. Targeting brca1 localization to
augment breast tumor sensitivity to poly(adp-ribose) polymerase inhibition. Cancer Res. 2012, 72,
55475555. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Whitfield, M.L.; Sherlock, G.; Saldanha, A.J.; Murray, J.I.; Ball, C.A.; Alexander, K.E.;
Matese, J.C.; Perou, C.M.; Hurt, M.M.; Brown, P.O.; et al. Identification of genes periodically
expressed in the human cell cycle and their expression in tumors. Mol. Biol. Cell. 2002, 13,
19772000. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Zhou, T.; Chou, J.; Mullen, T.E.; Elkon, R.; Zhou, Y.; Simpson, D.A.; Bushel, P.R.; Paules, R.S.;
Lobenhofer, E.K.; Hurban, P.; et al. Identification of primary transcriptional regulation of cell
cycle-regulated genes upon DNA damage. Cell Cycle 2007, 6, 972981. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Puc, J.; Parsons, R. Pten loss inhibits Chk1 to cause double stranded-DNA breaks in cells.
Cell Cycle 2005, 4, 927929. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Cancers 2015, 7

1090

28. Li, P.; Goto, H.; Kasahara, K.; Matsuyama, M.; Wang, Z.; Yatabe, Y.; Kiyono, T.; Inagaki, M. P90
Rsk arranges Chk1 in the nucleus for monitoring of genomic integrity during cell proliferation.
Mol. Biol. Cell. 2012, 23, 15821592. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Puc, J.; Keniry, M.; Li, H.S.; Pandita, T.K.; Choudhury, A.D.; Memeo, L.; Mansukhani, M.;
Murty, V.V.; Gaciong, Z.; Meek, S.E.; et al. Lack of pten sequesters Chk1 and initiates genetic
instability. Cancer Cell. 2005, 7, 193204. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. King, F.W.; Skeen, J.; Hay, N.; Shtivelman, E. Inhibition of Chk1 by activated PKB/Akt. Cell Cycle
2004, 3, 634637. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
31. Chen, B.; Tardell, C.; Higgins, B.; Packman, K.; Boylan, J.F.; Niu, H. BRAFV600E negatively
regulates the akt pathway in melanoma cell lines. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e42598. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
32. Anjum, R.; Blenis, J. The RSK family of kinases: Emerging roles in cellular signalling. Nat. Rev.
Mol. Cell. Biol. 2008, 9, 747758. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Ray-David, H.; Romeo, Y.; Lavoie, G.; Deleris, P.; Tcherkezian, J.; Galan, J.A.; Roux, P.P. Rsk
promotes g2 DNA damage checkpoint silencing and participates in melanoma chemoresistance.
Oncogene 2013, 32, 44804489. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Zhang, L.; Chen, H.; Gong, M.; Gong, F. The chromatin remodeling protein BRG1 modulates
BRCA1 response to UV irradiation by regulating ATR/ATM activation. Front. Oncol. 2013, 3, 7.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Thiel, A.; Heinonen, M.; Kantonen, J.; Gylling, A.; Lahtinen, L.; Korhonen, M.; Kytola, S.;
Mecklin, J.P.; Orpana, A.; Peltomaki, P.; et al. BRAF mutation in sporadic colorectal cancer and
lynch syndrome. Virchows Arch. 2013, 463, 613621. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Simpson, D.A.; Livanos, E.; Heffernan, T.P.; Kaufmann, W.K. Telomerase expression is sufficient
for chromosomal integrity in cells lacking p53 dependent G1 checkpoint function. J. Carcinog.
Electron. Resour. 2005, 4, 18. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Brown, D.B.; Peritz, A.E.; Uitto, J.; Gasparro, F.P. Ultraviolet-filtering properties of commonly
used tissue cell culture plasticware. Photodermatol. Photoimmunol. Photomed. 2001, 17,
126129. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Mendez, J.; Stillman, B. Chromatin association of human origin recognition complex, cdc6,
and minichromosome maintenance proteins during the cell cycle: Assembly of prereplication
complexes in late mitosis. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2000, 20, 86028612. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Gambichler, T.; Moussa, G.; Tomi, N.S.; Paech, V.; Altmeyer, P.; Kreuter, A. Reference limits for
erythema-effective UV doses. Photochem. Photobiol. 2006, 82, 10971102. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Smith-Roe, S.L.; Nakamura, J.; Holley, D.; Chastain, P.D., 2nd; Rosson, G.B.; Simpson, D.A.;
Ridpath, J.R.; Kaufman, D.G.; Kaufmann, W.K.; Bultman, S.J. SWI/SNF complexes are required
for full activation of the DNA-damage response. Oncotarget 2015, 6, 732745. [PubMed]
2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).